Thursday, August 31, 2006

As we celebrate our National Day, there are several incidents which took place for the past few months that are worth to be given serious thought in terms of how far have we moved on in building a multi-racial, multi-lingua, multi-religious society.

Before that, we have textbooks in Universities that told our students that DAP caused the May 13 riots, and that one of the reasons for Peristiwa Kampung Medan was the anti-social behaviour of the Indian youths in Kampung Medan.

We have UMNO MP named Badruddin from Jerai, Kedah that asked the non-Muslims to leave this country if they don’t like Malaysia to be an Islamic State.

We have another a Cabinet Minsiter called Rafidah Aziz who had recently been making fierce statements, such as “no compromise” with the New Economic Policy of 30% Bumiputera equity to the extent of saying that Malaysia was prepared to say “bye-bye” to FDI.

We also never forget that UMNO Youth Deputy Chief, Khairy Jamaluddin said that Chinese could exploit the current internal split of UMNO to advance its interests, giving examples as the memorandum by MCA Ministers to the Prime Minister on freedom of religion and the 1999 Malaysian Chinese Election Appeals (Suqiu) following UMNO disunity during Reformasi following the expulsion of Anwar Ibrahim from UMNO and his persecution.

Ironically, this person (Khairy Jamaluddin) who becomes the running dog was also the person taken charge on Ronnie’s article one year ago. I still remember very clearly that UMNO and mainstream newspaper launched an all out attack led by Khairy on Ronnie and DAP. PAS leader, Husam Musa also stood up to defend the Chinese.

The article said: “History cannot ignore the fact that the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) had also played a role in fighting for the independence of this country.”

Maybe this is the time for us to re-read Ronnie’s writing one year ago. Time passed very fast, at times and situation like this, I don’t Ronnie’s article can stir up any sentiment. Instead, reasons and rationality take the ground. Khairy certainly has more to answer than Ronnie at the moment.

Khairy, please explain!

===

The real fighters for MERDEKA Media Statementby Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew

(Petaling Jaya, Saturday): We have just celebrated our nation’s 48th birthday yesterday.Many Malaysians, especially the young generations born after the Independence, knows very little about the history of Malaya (now Malaysia).

The History textbooks they studied in schools do not give them the real picture.

Contrary to what they have learned from the textbooks, UMNO leaders were not the real fighters for Independence.

Most of the UMNO leaders in the Merdeka era were actually senior servants of the British government. Just take the first four Prime Ministers in the country as example.

The first Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra AlHaj Ibni Almarhum Sultan Abdul Hamid Halim Shah, was serving the colonial government in Kedah as a District Officer in districts like Langkawi, Kulim and Sg Petani.

After obtaining his LLB at the Inner Temple, London in 1945, he served as a DPP and later promoted to the position of a session court president in Selangor.

His deputy Tun Abdul Razak bin Datuk Hussein (Malaysia’s second Prime Minister), was serving the British as the State Secretary of Pahang in 1952 after obtaining his LLB at the Lincoln’s Inn as a Queen’s Scholar in 1950. Razak served as the Chief Minister of Pahang in 1955.

Tun Hussein bin Dato Onn, the third Prime Minister of Malaysia, was a police depot commander in Johor Bahru in 1945. He later served as an Assistant District Officer in districts like Kuala Selangor and Klang in the fifties. He obtained his law degree at Lincoln’s Inn in 1958.

The fourth Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, was serving as a medical officer in Alor Star, Langkawi and Perlis in the fifties after graduating as a medical doctor in 1953 from Universiti Malaya (Singapore). He opened his own clinic in Alor Star in 1957.

UMNO leaders were treated as friends of the British. Together with the leaders of MCA and MIC, they cooperated with the British master to negotiate for the Independence of Malaya.

Little wonder why The Times of London reported the birth of Malaya with a resonant chord of approval. In particular it pointed out the impeccable credentials of its conservative Malay leaders, who, unlike the troublesome radicals of the Left, had showed that they were of a decidedly more moderate and accommodating temper. It reassured its readers that:

‘Malayan nationalism had not been born out of conflict and there was not a single Malayan Minister who had ever spent a day in prison for sedition’. (The Times, August 31, 1957.)

One may even argue that the Alliance leaders were not the ones that put up real sacrifice for the Merdeka struggle.On the other hand, many of the real freedom fighters were thrown into jails.

Unfortunately, the proposal was rejected by the congress and the PKMM delegation staged a walkout as a protest on the third day of the congress. Its leaders continued to step up its struggle for a truly independent Malaya, unlike the other conservative UMNO leaders who wanted to maintain their status quo.

The British started to clamp down on PKMM and API members in 1948. Many members and leaders were jailed and some of those who escaped from the police went into the jungle to join the arm struggle led by MCP. This has created a political vacuum, which was quickly filled up by UMNO with the consent of the British. Both MCA and MIC were also formed after the establishment of UMNO with the encouragement from the British.

It must be pointed out that without the struggle and sacrifice made by these freedom fighters and the pressure mounted by the Malayan Communist Party led by Chin Peng (as acknowledged by Tan Sri Rahim Noor, IGP on signing the peace accord with MCP), the British would certainly not willing to cooperate and negotiate with the Alliance leaders for an “Independence without bloodshed”.

We must also not forget about the struggle put up by visionaries like Ibrahim Haji Yaakob (KMM, Kesatuan Melayu Muda) who dreamed of forming Malaya Raya in the 1940s.Some of these freedom fighters continued fighting for MERDEKA during the Japanese Occupation.

We could even trace some of the freedom fighters way back in 1890s. Some of these legendaries include Dato Bahaman, Mat Kilau and Mat Kelubi.

Note: Partai Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM) was formed on 17 October 1945 in lpoh, Perak, a year before UMNO was formed. Founding leaders include legendaries like Mokhtaruddin Lasso, Ahmad Boestaman and Dr. Burhanuddin al-Helmi (later became President of PAS). The objective of PKMM was to fight for a truly independent nation, free from the stranglehold of the British colonials. Angkatan Pemuda Insaf (API), Angkatan Wanita Sedar (AWAS) and Barisan Tani Se-Malaya (BATAS), Majlis Agama Tertingga Se-Malaya (MATA) were all wings set up under PKMM to fight for Independence.

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

I was later informed by the press that the YDP insist on the decision but other companies which are interested must join the consortium, while the other companies in the consortium which do not have the licenses will have to get one in six-month time.

Talking over the phone on the incident. Two security guards were seen screening visitors who wish to enter the meeting hall. We have only two persons and it seems like the council is putting up a security more than necessary.

Try to have a talk with the YDP when the meeting is over. He asked us to talk to the reporters instead. Is this what accountability meant for YDP?

I am writing this blog from MPSJ building through their wireless broadband connection.

Below is a letter which I emailed and faxed to the Council YDP's office last week, informing the Council that I will attend the MPSJ Full Board Council Meeting scheduled on 28th August (which was later postponed to 30th August 2006).

My intention to attend the meeting is to observe of whether the council is going to decide on the current pest control scandal whereby the council has recently appointed seven companies to "monopoly" pest control exercisen in area under the jurisdiction of the Council. Failing so, business operators will not be allowed to apply or renew their license.

These companies are later confirmed that they are not recognised by Pesticide Board of the Council, as well as Pest Control Association Malaysia (PCAM).

I arrived at the Council meeting hall, Bilik Mesyuarat Kenanga, Level 2 of the Council's building and was asked to leave by the Council Secretary saying that we are not allowed to enter and we must get approval from the Council President, Dato' Mohd Arif Bin Ab. Rahman, before we can enter.

Also attending the meeting was Mr Thomas Goh, the DAP Bukit Gasing Branch Treasurer. I argued that the meeting should be an open meeting and that the meeting should not conducted in such a secrecy that the Council create so many obstacles for taxpayers and the public to attend the council full board meeting.

The Council Secretary immediately told me that we should write in to the YDP's office to "seek" for approval. I immediately replied that unless the Council wants to hide something from public knowledge, then there is no reason for the Council to close everything from the public knowledge.

If proceeding of the highest legislative council in this country, the proceeding of Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara, as well as the Selangor State Legislative Council Meeting (DUN) can be opened to public with simple registration, I do not see any reason why the Council has to be that bureaucratic, undiplomatic (as if we are terrorists) in allowing the public to attend their full board meeting.

We were still not allowed to stay in the meeting room and I rushed to the YDP's office to negotiate with him (At that time, he was not seen in the meeting room yet, meaning that he could still be in his office). I spoken to the guard, he then informed the YDP's PA. I waited for 15 minutes but there are still no people coming out from the office to talk to us while the meeting has already started.

I met a reporters 30 minutes ago and she told me that the council is discussing on the pest control fiasco. She told me that Councilors Lee Hwa Beng is absent. Liew Yuen Keong, Yap Yuen Fatt and Kow Cheong Wei are there. She also said "six or seven Councilors is speaking on this issue but the YDP is very firm on this" but I am not informed of who are the "six or seven Councilors".

Councilor Awtar Singh came out and spoke to me and told me that I should know the procedure. I immediately replied him that what procedure had I not followed when I already emailed and faxed the YDP that I will be attending the meeting. Was he too busy until he had not time to reply my email? Or he does not use email?

"Well, if you have done that, then there should not be any problem." He said.

I told that that should be the way, I am not coming to disturb the meeting. I am merely attending, and I wrote in although the meeting should be conducted openly.

He was speechless.

I am now waiting outside the meeting hall and I will conduct a press conference with the reporters once the meeting is over.

Friday, August 25, 2006

It was reported in the Sun yesterday that Selangor Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Mohd Khir Toyo has instructed the Subang Jaya and Sepang Municipal Councils to submit reports to him on the vetting procedure for the award of fumigation concessions to two consortiums.

He was also quoted that he is waiting for the reports and if the vetting process is legally wrong, action can be taken. He said that if there is any corruption, a report should be made to the Anti Corruption Agency.

We welcome the statement from the Mentri Besar but we also want the reports to be simultaneously available to the media and public for greater public scrutiny, afterall, the people is the taxpayers and they have absolute right to understand how MPSJ and MPSepang award pest control concessionaire to these companies which are not recognized by Pesticide Board and Pest Control Association Malaysia (PCAM)

On this part, we are willing to assist the Mentri Besar. It is always good to listen to both side of the stories in order to get a clearer picture of the whole incident. Inliue of this, the DAP Selangor is more than ready to present a copy of the materials we have to the Mentri Besar for his reference.

Three more reason for MPSJ to suspend the decision

The Mentri Besar should pay special attention to the different contradicting statement from the council officers, President and Councilors. I had pointed in a press conference on 31st July that DAP Selangor is outraged on the decision made by MPSJ based on the following five reasons:

1. What are the jurisdictions for MPSJ to require non-eatery commercial outlets to conduct pest-control exercise? MPSJ is certainly lacking transparency in it’s policy making when requiring owners of non-eatery commercial outlets to do the same.

2. Even though if pest control exercise is compulsory for all commercial outlets, why do MPSJ only designate one consortium to conduct the exercise for more than 10,000 commercial outlets under MPSJ’s jurisdiction? Is this consortium more experienced than other companies in the market, or it’s charges are more economical than the rest? Is the awarding of the concessionaire conducted based on open-tender system?

3. This consortium is said not a member of the Pest Control Association of Malaysia (PCAM). If that’s the case, why MPSJ does not select a company registered, recognized and accredited by the association? Are the services provided by this consortium guaranteed and accredited by the association? Will it be held liable legally for any losses or accidents by its personnel when conducting pest-control exercises, especially when pest control personnel must be well-trained to handle insecticides and poisonous materials which could also be carcinogenic?

4. DAP Selangor has also conducted a company search for the companies under the consortium and discovered that some of the companies are not only newly established, but also led by directors in their 20s. This raises a question of whether these companies are capable to conduct proper pest-control exercise.

5. The lowest available charge of the consortium is RM600, which is twice the market price. If all owners of commercial outlets under the jurisdiction of Subang Jaya were to sign a contract with this consortium till 2026, that will be a great fortune for the consortium.

After that, Subang Jaya ADUN cum MPSJ councilor YB Datuk Lee Hwa Beng claimed in a Malaysiakini report that the council will not employ companies which are not recognized by the Pesticide Board under the Agriculture Department.

Since Lee Hwa Beng mentioned about Pesticide Board under the Agriculture Department, I then on 9th August obtained the approved companies list from the Board, initially done through the website, in which I discover that the consortium approved by MPSJ (Konsortium SJ Pest Control Sdn. Bhd.) and it’s members (Koswasta Asia Pest Control Sdn. Bhd., Damai Pest Control Sdn. Bhd., Vetga Sdn. Bhd., Inspirasi Asia Sdn. Bhd., Suria Sakti Resources Sdn. Bhd. and Denmas Sdn. Bhd.) and the four companies approved by Majlis Perbandaran Sepang or MPSepang (Salak Pest Control Sdn. Bhd., Wismanis Sdn. Bhd., Lembah Dahlia Sdn. Bhd. and Koswasta Asia Sdn. Bhd.) do not appear on any of the lists. Some media have even taken the initiative to write in to Pesticide Board to get a written verification, which they managed to obtain.

Although Lee Hwa Beng claimed that the Council only appoint companies accredited by Pesticide Board, but he failed to explain why the Council persist in appointing these pest-control companies. Even though we have proven that these companies are not accredited by pesticide Board, the Council in a statement said that out of the seven companies mentioned, there are only five accredited by the Board (please refer to a newspaper report published in The Sun dated 8th August 2006, page 11).

On 21st August, Lee Hwa Beng again said that the Council’s License Committee has on 20th June 2006 has decided that companies not accredited by Pesticide Board cannot carry out any pest control exercise. Business operators can still seek services from other pest-control operators.

Unfortunately, although Lee said that the ruling is still effective, there are still business operators who are forced to sign contract with the newly-appointed companies before they can renew or apply their trade license.

He even further pointed that he himself and YB Liew Yuen Keong had opposed to the appointment of the six companies but majority won.

In fact, judging from the different and contradicting statement between Lee Hwa Beng and MPSJ, it is not shocking if they are people lodge reports with ACA against him and MPSJ.

Since first, this has seriously tarnished the image of MPSJ and Lee Hwa Beng; second, this decision has drawn opposition from business operators and third, the Mentri Besar has expressed his own concern over the issue, and has even directed both councils to submit a report, Lee Hwa Beng shall on the up and coming MPSJ full board council meeting on 28th August until there is a full and accountable explanation from the council to the public and the Mentri Besar.

I received a copy of the Order Paper of the current Parliament Session which started yesterday to 13th December 2006. The Order Paper is a print out of all written and oral questions raised by MPs during this Parliament session. I am informed that each MP is allowed to raise 10 oral questions and 5 written questions which will be answered by the relevant Ministry. MPs are allowed to raise any question based on their own discretion.

During the last Parliament session, Gerakan MP for Puchong Lau Yan Peng raised a question on 4th April 2006 on the future of Puchong Bukit Nanas Landfill. The question was answered by Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Housing and Local Governments. Lau also put up a supplementary question on the fate of South KL Transfer Station (SKLTS).

It was at that time that the Parliamentary Secretary answered that the there is no exact date of when the landfill will be closed and that the Ministry is merely acting as technical consultant in SKLTS project. The decision of whether the waste transfer station will be built in Kampung Bohol will eventually be decided by Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL)

According to newspaper report of Nanyang Siang Pau and China Press dated 13th August 2006, it was reported that State Assemblyman for Bandar Kinrara, YB Kow Cheong Wei announced in a press conference, which was attended by representatives from No Sampah Station Pro-Tem Committee, that the proposed South KL Waste Transfer Station (SKLTS) project will be scrapped based on unofficial information he obtained from various government departments.

This was further verified when reporters contacted Parliamentary Secretary of Ministry of Federal Territories, YB Datuk Yew Teong Lok, that the project is already cancelled.

What is most mind-boggling in this incident is that nobody from the government, especially concerned ministries, are capable to come out with a proper and official black-and-white, not even Datuk Yew Teong Lok, to CONFIRM that the project is scrapped, as the residents have been waiting for an official answer from the government since months.

I would believe that it will be good if Lau Yan Peng can put up an oral question to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government or Ministry of Federal Territories to seek for a more updated and authoritative answer with regards to the fate of SKLTS. I am however disappointed that Lau Yan Peng had failed in carrying out his responsibility when he did not put up any question on this issue, as well as the final closure date of Bukit Nanas Landfill. I would like to re-write Lau Yan Peng’s questions brought up in the current Parliament session, as printed in the Parliament Order Paper in Malay:

It is very clear that Lau Yan Peng did not ask any question on the issue. If Lau Yan Peng would have asked this question, then Kinrara folks who has been living in anxiety since early 2006 could have know the answer before 2007.

The pest control concession scandal must be resolved during the up and coming Subang Jaya Municipal Council full board meeting on 28th August 2006, in which the Council should table an explanation to the public on the specific reasons why the Council resort to giving away concession in pest control, why the concession is only given to a certain companies which are neither accredited by Pesticide Board (under the Department of Agriculture) nor Pest Control Association of Malaysia (PCAM)

The Council should also explain of whether it is prepared to take a stand to admit that the selection process is conducted through an open-tender system and whether the Council is prepared to come clear by revealing the content of the contract for public scrutiny.

In this, MCA Adun for Subang Jaya cum MPSJ Councilor YB Lee Hwa Beng had previously promised that he will bring this matter up in the coming full board council meeting in August. I hope that he can keep his word by not only bringing this matter in the meeting but also trying to resolve and fight for the rights of all business operators in Subang Jaya to push the Council to withdraw this ruling which was clearly a decision made without proper consultation with all stakeholders, especially those business operators under the jurisdiction of the Council.

In order to ensure that the issue is brought to the attention of the councilors and the mayor, DAP Selangor will attend the full board council meeting.

Friday, August 18, 2006

It must be a deplorable proof of poor delivery system when the contractor awarded to upgrade Jalan Puchong 12th Mile to 16th Mile takes more than two year to complete the project despite the completed date of the project has been extended.

Tuah Mahir Sdn. Bhd. is the contractor assigned by Public Works Department (PWD) to build a 3.55km four-lane road. The project costs RM 27 million and it started in June 2004. Work was supposed to have finished by December 2005 but Tuah Mahir has asked for an extension of the completion date to June 2006.

While claiming that he will ‘monitor’ the progress of the project, MP Lau Yan Peng also claimed in January 2006 that Tuah Mahir and PWD had assured residents that they would step up safety measures along the stretch. Among the safety measures proposed are:1. Floodlights would be installed and the number of streetlights increased.2. Assign a worker present at all times to control the traffic.3. An overhead pedestrian bridge at 14th Mile is built for people to cross the road to Puchong Utama.

Despite all these sweet promises made more than half a year ago, the entrance from Jalan Puchong into the stretch at 12th Mile is closed now and no vehicles can enter into Puchong 14th Miles via Jalan Puchong.

The confusing traffic lanes have caused several fatal accidents. Vehicles traveling from one direction always have to switch lanes when they reach certain junctions or corners. Besides, there are no adequate signage put up causing confusion to motorists and road users.

DAP Selangor would like to put forward the following six questions to JKR and Lau Yan Peng and we hope that relevant parties including the two and Tuah Mohir could come clear with all the queries we raised:

1. Instead of always giving false hope to the people, could not it be better if Lau Yan Peng utilize part of his RM2 million constituency development allocation for each BN MP to assist in the completion of the project?

2. Tuah Mahir said in January 2006 that work to remove underground pipes and cables had delayed the project. Was there any pre-construction inspection carried out before work started? Or this is not included as part of the scope of works to remove underground pipes and cables included in the Letter of Award (LoA) to Tuah Mahir?3. Could the Petaling District JKR reveal the contract of the project and to come clear of whether there are any malpractices in awarding the contract to the contractor?4. Are there additional cost added onto the original cost of RM27 million, since the contractor failed to complete the project in times?

5. Are there any compensation claimed by JKR from the contractor on any delay caused by them? If yes, then how much had been claimed and paid? If not, why?

6. Could JKR shows the track record of the contractor and consider blacklisting the contractor, if they fail to justify their reason for the delay?

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

There is an urgent need for the Ministry of Housing and Local Governments to come clear of whether the RM1.5 billion-Broga Incinerator Project is scrapped or not so that the people of Broga do not have to live in uncertainties.

DAP Selangor would like to reiterate our stand that any incinerator can only be built in remote area which is far from water retention area in order to avoid environmental pollution which endanger the health of the residents (by-production of dioxine from incinerator is carsinogenic) as well as contaminating portable water.

This is also the reason why DAP Selangor stage a strong protest against the construction of similar incinerator in Kampung Bohol, Puchong when the project was first poposed to be built in that area before it was relocated to Broga, Semenyih which was also heavily protested by the residents of Broga.

The main question is that to date, there is no proper and official reply from the Ministry to verify the report published in Singapore’s Business Times, whether the project will be continued or scrapped.

The residents will definitely have every reason to celebrate if the project was scrapped while contractor of the incinerator, Ebara Corporation will file their compensation suit against the government to seek for a compensation of RM500 million. If the Government continues with the project, strong and undivided protest from the residents is expected. Three vital questions are to be answered:

1. Why the Ministry of Housing and Local Governments did not clear the air at the first place when the news was published in Singapore Business Times? To date, what is the progress of the project?

2. Whether the Government will source from the public coffer to compensate RM500 million to Ebara Corporation? Will the Government announce the content of the contract or LOA issued to the contractor? Are there any other ways to reduce the compensation?

3. For such an important news affecting the lives of those living in Broga, is it not ridiculous for the people to know about it from a foreign media? Is there any gag order issued to the media of not to highlight the issue? Or is it intentionally arranged by the government so that local media is sealed from the news?

All these queries concern the transparency, integrity and efficiency of the running of government machineries. We cannot agree more with the Government when the Government chooses to silent itself from giving public clearance or verification on various environmental issue, including another waste transfer station proposed to be built in Kampung Bohol, Puchong. It is clear that the people are waiting for confirmation from the Government. There shall be no delay in it.

According to newspaper report of Nanyang Siang Pau and China Press dated 13th August 2006, it was reported that State Assemblyman for Bandar Kinrara, YB Kow Cheong Wei announced in a press conference, which is attended by representatives from No Sampah Station Pro-Tem Committee, that the proposed South KL Waste Transfer Station (SKLTS) project will be scrapped based on unofficial information he obtained from various government department.

This was further verified when reporters contacted Parliamentary Secretary of Ministry of Federal Territories, YB Datuk Yew Teong Lok, that the project is already cancelled.

What is most mind-boggling in this incident is that nobody from the government is capable to come out with a proper and official black-and-white, not even Datuk Yew Teong Lok, to CONFIRM that the project is scrapped.

At the same time, YB Kow Cheong Wei is expecting officers from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government as well as those from the Economic Planning Unit (which is under the jurisdiction of Prime Minister Department) to officially announce it.

If it would have been like this, then certainly it will sound very peculiar when the earlier answer received from the Federal Government is that the project will be managed, owned and operated by DBKL whereby the Ministry of Housing and Local Governments is only serving as a technical consultant.

I had earlier highlighted this crucial point in my several statements that the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Dr S. Subramaniam had said in the Parliament on 4th April, Monday when he replied to a supplementary question raised by MP for Puchong, YB Lau Yan Peng, that his ministry only serves as a technical consultant whereby the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) will be managing the South Kuala Lumpur Transfer Station.

He also said that DBKL will be collecting solid waste from households in Southern Kuala Lumpur before sending to Bukit Tagar Landfill or Broga incinerators for thermal treatment. Dr S. Subramanian also said that his ministry will however convey the grouses, complaints and opinions of the affected people in that area to DBKL. Judging from Subramaniam’s statement, one would easily conclude that it is DBKL to make the decision of whether to continue the project or not.

However, after detailing YB Kow Cheong Wei’s statement, it is highly suspicious of whether DBKL is fully empowered to make the final decision as other agencies under the Federal Government seem to have a hand in it.

After reading all these replies and answers from various governmental department, including statement from YB Kow Cheong Wei and YB Datuk Yew Teong Lok on the fate of SKLTS, which government department is going to announce it?

Is the project such a big hot potato until there are no single government departments, ministries or even BN elected representative come out to clear the uncertainties, fearing that whichever department who announces it will have to bear the blame and responsibility, if it causes any damages?

Such uncertainty should have been cleared by the government so that the people will no longer live in uncertainties and worries. Failing so would only mean that this is another show of poor delivery system in which the DBKL, the Ministry of Federal Territories, the Ministry of Housing and Local Governments and Economic Planning Unit are passing the balls to each other on the proposal to construct SKLTS, implying that we are seriously lacking behind in establishing a first world delivery system, which is crucial and vital in carrying out all the five thrusts outlined in the 9th Malaysia Plan.

The government machineries must run transparently and therefore, DAP Selangor would like to openly call on the DBKL, the Ministry of Federal Territories, the Ministry of Housing and Local Governments as well as the Economic Planning Unit to come out with a proper joint statement to announce the fate of the project, regardless of whether it will be continued or scrapped.

Saturday, August 12, 2006

DAP Selangor believes that now is the right time for the government to decide on the fate of South KL Waste Transfer Station (SKLTS)

The people affected have organized themselves to protest this project when the media announced this project earlier this year.

We have to bear in mind that it is a general perception that Puchong has increasingly became the dumping site of Klang Valley, resulting in severe environmental problem in Puchong. If the government proceeds to construct this transfer station in Kampung Bohol, this perception will certainly deepen.

Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Dr S. Subramaniam said in the Parliament on 4th April, Monday that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government only serves as a technical consultant whereby the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) will be managing the South Kuala Lumpur Transfer Station, which will be collecting solid waste from households in Southern Kuala Lumpur before sending to Bukit Tagar Landfill or Broga incinerators for thermal treatment.

Dr S. Subramanian also said that his ministry will convey the grouses, complaints and opinions of the affected people in that area to DBKL.

It is disappointing that the Ministry was unable to deliver a full and proper explanation pertaining to the construction of the transfer station which is believed to have an adverse impact on people’s livelihood in that area.

Being the manager of the transfer station, the failure of DBKL to provide a public explanation is equally disappointing especially when the issue has been several times highlighted by the press and that the people are eagerly waiting for an answer from DBKL?

Far from being a convincing answer, Subramaniam’s explanation that his Ministry is only serving as a Technical consultant is widely regarded as mere rhetoric without addressing the following issues:• The EIA report has mentioned that the area is one of the largest residential area in Kuala Lumpur with 79,323 houses in this area in 2000. It is questionable that the area is still regarded as “suitable” for a solid waste transfer station.• The Selangor state government has claimed that they are not informed of any proposal to build any solid waste transfer station nearby the boundary of Kuala Lumpur – Selangor.

These are among some of the arguments included in a official objection to the DEIA report submitted to the Department of Environment on 24th February 2006 filed by DAP Selangor, in which DAP Selangor has yet been informed any decision on the DEIA report to date.

Despite the technical parts of the EIA Report, the second question that would raise many queries is that there are only a total of 487 people interviewed on the acceptance of the proposal. This is reported in the press which it itself is already a question as to how the views of 487 persons can represent the views of an estimated 100,000 people residing around the area? To carry out any public survey, it is normal that a sampling of 1000 interviews is the minimum in order to reduce errors.

The public survey generated form the EIA report also informed that a total of 226 out of 487 residents (or 66.9% of the total residents) had expressed their disagreement towards the project. Cy-waste, the project proponent of SKLTS also claimed in it’s EIA report that the public used to misunderstand that SKLTS is a solid waste incinerator or landfill project, and that they will “employ professional PR firm to undertake the dissemination of correct information and to educate the public on the positive impacts of the project has on the environment”

This is not the impression given when according to the Star dated 20th January 2006, Cy-waste Sdn. Bhd. Chief Executive Officer Daud Ahmad was reported as saying “We held a dialogue with residents from the area in December and they must be satisfied with our answers, which is why there is no objection so far''.

I had earlier on late February 2006 asked that if Cy-waste had organized the said dialogue with residents from the area in December 2005, why now the residents would turn their back on them roughly one month later. Who exactly had Cy-waste met on December 2005? How did they conduct the dialogue?

It would seems that my earlier question coincide well with the findings in the EIA, which unfortunately affect the credibility of Cy-waste as there are inconsistency in their answer.

As to now, will DBKL proceed with this project? Is DBKL fully empowered to put aside this project which has triggered the anger and frustration of the people?

The people are longing for a decision, and it is the right time for DBKL and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to come out with a full explanation without any delay.

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Subang Jaya Municipal Council MPSJ has recently clarified their stand on the pest control ruing fiasco, claiming that the several pest control firms that collected money from business operators, but did not rid their premises of the pests and police are monitoring and investigating such firms. The council also added that there were firms that closed down after operating for only a few months.

This is a weak reason as the council cannot justify its reason to hire a consortium which is neither accredited by the Pesticide Board (Under the Department of Agriculture) nor recognized by Pest Control Association of Malaysia, to run the required pest control exercise for business operators under its jurisdiction.

Whether it is a genuine intention from the Council to “protect the rights of the business operators” or to maintain the cleanliness of areas under the Council’s jurisdiction, the core question is whether the assigned pest-control companies are selected through a professional, transparent and fair procedure.

The Sun dated 10th August 2006 has carried a headline repot on the issue. It is reported that:“Replying to queries from the Sun, an official of the Pesticides Board confirmed that the 10 companies do not have pest control operator licences as required under the Pesticides Act 1974 - and have not applied for it.”

“And yet, all business premises under the jurisdiction of these two councils are forced to appoint these companies under the council's two panels - at a standard cost of RM600 - to fumigate their premises before they can renew their business licenses annually.”

“It is noted that some of these companies have only a RM2 paid-up capital and were set up recently.”

“To justify its selection, the MPSJ had said in a statement last Friday (Aug 4, 2006) that the companies in their panel have pesticide applicator licences.”

“To this, the board official said having a pesticides applicator licence does not mean one can run a pesticide or fumigation business.”

“To do that, he said, one needs a pesticide operator licence. However, one can get this; one needs sales and storage licence for one's premises, and a premise licence from the local authority.”

“A pesticide aplicator can only be licensed once he has passed the Pesticides Board annual examination.”

“MPSJ president Datuk Mohd Arif Ab. Rahman, when told of this revelation, expressed surprise and said he would check on it.”

It is prevalent to us that there are serious confusions and contradictions between Lee Hwa Beng’s comment and the Council’s statement:

1. If the Council were to assign a designated pest control companies, why companies registered and recognized by the PCAM and Pesticide Board not selected?

2. Lee Hwa Beng claimed that the Council only appoint companies accredited by Pesticide Board, but later in a statement issued by the Council, out of the seven companies mentioned, there are only five accredited by the Board (please refer to a newspaper report published in The Sun dated 8th August 2006, page 11). The rest must ‘get one in one to six-month time’.

a. If there are companies not yet accredited by the Board, why does MPSJ appoint them? Could MPSJ not wait until the other two companies accredited before they are appointed by MPSJ?

b. If there is any accident occurs when these companies are conducting pest control exercises, causing casualties, will the Councils bear any responsibility?

c. What is more serious, why is it that none of these seven companies appointed by the council are registered and accredited with the Pesticide Board after checking as claimed by the Board? Who is not telling the truth?

3. Why did the Councils appoint these companies in a rush without carrying out an detailed background searching? A lot of these companies are newl established and their directors are very young, what sorts of track records they have until MPSJ can appoint them?

4. Lee Haw Beng clained that during th Council’s Full Board Meeting in July, he has suggested to the Council not to appoint companies which are not recognized b the Pesticide Board.

However, Lee Hwa Beng was reported as saying in Malaysiakini.com that companies not accredited by the pesticide board under the Agriculture Ministry would not be recognized by the Subang Jaya Municipality Council (MPSJ) to provide business premises with certificates of pest control treatments. So, apparently, has Lee’s suggestion finally adopted by the council? Why are there contractions between his statement as Councilor and the Council’s statement?

Will the Council’s President and Lee Hwa Beng clarify this during their “Meet The People” session tomorrow in MPSJ?

MPSJ and MPSepang shall adopt three major steps to resolve the fiasco – suspend the order, hold a dialog and re-elect the companies transparently and openly.

With concern to the recent ruling from Subang Jaya Municipal Council (MPSJ) which requires all commercial outlet owners under its jurisdiction to sign up with a consortium (SJ Pest Control Consortium Sdn. Bhd.) for pest control services with charges higher than market price prior to renewal or new application of trade license, Subang Jaya ADUN cum MPSJ councilor YB Datuk Lee Hwa Beng claimed in a Malaysiakini report that the council will not employ companies which are not recognized by the Pesticide Board under the Agriculture Department.

Since Lee Hwa Beng mentioned about Pesticide Board under the Agriculture Department, I have tried to obtain the approved companies list from the Board, initially done through the website.

The website shows that any person who is employed to conduct pest control exercise in others’ compound using pesticides, the person must obtain a license issued by the Pesticide Board. The license is subjected to renewal every two years and it is non-transferable.

There is also a list of approved companies in the website. Although the list is almost the same as the list issued by Pest Control Association of Malaysia, it is ensure that the consortium approved by MPSJ (Konsortium SJ Pest Control Sdn. Bhd.) and it’s members (Koswasta Asia Pest Control Sdn. Bhd., Damai Pest Control Sdn. Bhd., Vetga Sdn. Bhd., Inspirasi Asia Sdn. Bhd., Suria Sakti Resources Sdn. Bhd. and Denmas Sdn. Bhd.) and the four companies approved by Majlis Perbandaran Sepang or MPSepang (Salak Pest Control Sdn. Bhd., Wismanis Sdn. Bhd., Lembah Dahlia Sdn. Bhd. and Koswasta Asia Sdn. Bhd.) do not appear on any of the lists.

This only means that these companies are not only unrecognized by PCAM, but also Pesticide Board under the Department of Agriculture. If this is the case, is Lee Hwa Beng’s statement contradicting the decision of the Council?

More important is that these unrecognized companies can be charged under 1975 Pesticide Act. Will MPSJ and MPSepang be charged as well, ending up with both councils have to fork out taxpayers’ money to pay fines?

Before this, we have written to the Presidents of both Councils, urging them based on the principles of accountability, transparency and good governance to:1. Immediately suspend the implementation of this ruling until there is a clear and acceptable explanation from both Councils on this matter. Both Councils should also explain when it enters into an agreement with private consortium/companies without consulting the taxpayers.2. Immediately reveal the contents of the contracts in order to avoid both Councils from entering any unjust contract with any private entity which will cause damage to both Councils and their taxpayers.3. Immediately arrange for a three-party negotiation between the owners (the taxpayers), the consortium/private companies and both Councils to reach for a solution, so as to avoid innocent owners to sign any contract with the consortium/companies without adequate consultations on what have happened behind.

Unfortunately, there are no proper replies from any of the Councils’ officers. What is more worrying is that other than the three reasons mentioned above on why the Councils should immediately suspend this ruling, there seems to be another reason why the two Councils should suspend the ruling as they could be held liable under 1974 Pesticide Act when they allowed unrecognized pest control companies to operate within their jurisdiction.

Therefore, we urge Lee Hwa Beng to seriously answer the question of why the council could only recognize one consortium to handle pest control exercise within the council’s jurisdiction, which is the core question remain unanswered to date.

Monday, August 07, 2006

I was in Menara MBPJ, participated in the Budget Dialogue 2007 and 2008m organised by the City Council. Frankly, it was a commendable experience for me as I don't remember of any councils in Selangor or even any councils in my homestate, Perak does this.

Well I submitted a nine-point queries cum proposal to the council. For your information, these are probably the most last-minute kind of skatches that I have ever done, thanks to the last-minute kind of materials given by the Council.

I therefore raised one point in my speech, that I hope the dialogue will be a continuous one, and not a one-off PR exercise just to fulfill the requirement of Local Agenda 21, as most of us who attended the meeting are not adequately supplied with any information for us to provide fruitful inputs to the Council to prepare the Budget. This is why I asked a lot of questions in my submission as I believe the answers to the questions are very important to enlighten us in understanding more about the budget. Moreover, the Council is talking about "Self-sustaining based on a balance budget".

I just wonder how they can appreciate my questions, judging from the eye-contacts I have with the council officer who chair the meeting....she did not jot down what I say (or she is expecting me to write in to her afterwards?). When I was speaking, coincidently, the Mayor was sitting behind, I saw him, and I purposely tried to have eye-contact with him when I talked about billboard, about periodic announcement from his office on the number of billboards taken down every week, he did not seem to be happy with my talks, and he just ignored any eye-contact with me....

Well, these were what I experienced....perhaps the officers are shocked: how come we have one DAP fellow to kacau our show? (I was informed much later that there were attempts from the ground to stop me from talking. Reason being that I am not representing any RA/RT)

Well, I mentioned right from the beginning that I came in my capacity of a resident in SEA Park and a person who works in Paramount Garden. As long as I am a taxpayer to the Council, I think I deserve all the rights to be there. Probably, the problem started when I also mentioned loud and clear that I am also a member of DAP.

However tough it is, I think this is what we should do, we are merely carrying out our responsibilities as a responsible political party.

As a result of the lacks of accountability and transparency, the residents have retaliated. Of course, this is a commendable courageous move. PJ shall take the lead to change, and it's residents are doing a good job.

DAP PJ Action Team Nine-Point Proposal And Enquiries On The Drafting Of The City Council’s 2007 And 2008 Budgets

On behalf of DAP PJ Action Team, I welcome very much the good effort from the Council to organize a dialogue with the residents on the up and coming budget of the council for 2007 and 2008 this morning in your office. It is always our belief that good governance, transparency and accountability shall be always upheld in the grass-root level especially in the level of local councils.

However, it is our opinions that concrete and detailed figures shall be provided so as to facilitate our discussion this morning so that we (the community, the public sector, the private sector, the environmental sector and the social sector) can identify exactly the problems.

The answers towards questions raised below could be of good use to enlighten all of us in order to give us some practical and pragmatic inputs for the budget.

1. Would there be an announcement of a list of taxpayers, especially industrial and commercial taxpayers who delay in paying their assessments to the council for years? Although the officer who did the powerpoint presentation this morning mentioned that the amount has not been changing very much for years, it also shows that there are some taxpayers who constantly ignore their payments to the council.

2. Would the council announce a list of compensations to be paid by the council as this is not reflected in the presentation just now? For example in 2005 Shah Alam High Court had ordered MPPJ to compensate 86 residents from Taman Desaria due to the council’s fraud on issuing Development Order.

Another good example is that the MPPJ Football club is just involved in a lawsuit with Football Association of Perlis regarding to a transfer of two players. Perlis Football Association is requesting for a compensation of RM60,000.

Are there any direct and indirect relations between the football club and the council? This is very serious question. For your information, MPSJ is now sued by a private outdoor advertising company for not applying TOL for the companies to set-up outdoor billboards. The whole exercise had caused a lot of financial damages to the council in terms of advertisement revenue. We certainly do not wish MBPJ to be ordered to pay huge sum of monetary compensation which will be channeled from the taxpayers money.

3. For 2006, we are informed that RM166.49 million out of RM200.28 million revenue received by the council is spent for council’s administration. We were later informed that some of these monies were spent for the benefit of the people, for example payment to Alam Flora etc.

Could there be a more accountable explanation, for example an itemized payment under this RM166.49 million is made on how the council spends this RM166.49 million, as well as the RM33.72 million spent for development in PJ?

4. Could there be full release of the number of staffs employed by MBPJ according to departments in year 2006 and the estimated numbers of new staffs to be employed/added by the Council?

5. The expected revenue for the council for year 2007 and 2008 is RM208.85 million and RM214.41 million respectively. Is it true that the council considered that the long overdue unpaid assessment to be paid up by those errant taxpayers in order for the council to reach these numbers?

If not, are there not any worries from the Council that these numbers could be some arbitrary figures?

6. The public is informed that each councilor is allocated RM100,000 every year as revealed by YB Yong Dai Ying (BN Gerakan ADUN for Bukit Lanjan) who is absent in the meeting this morning. Could there be a proper account made available in the public domain?

7. Since the Mayor has claimed that the council had demolished some illegal billboards in PJ, would the Mayor like to report weekly on the numbers, sizes of the billboards as well as the owners of the billboards in order to uphold transparency and good governance?

8. The council officer has mentioned that the budget must be prepared based on a balance budget concept. Would there be any contingency budget allocated for special amenities repairing projects?

To wait for one year is certainly a time too long to wait. The excuse of “not enough budget” is another example of the lacks of consultations with the people

9. Conceptual suggestions – tourism in PJ shall be based on cultural development and integration. Museum is just another construction project which can be meaningless when the most elementary attraction to make PJ a tourism city is the essence of the culture we have. Although PJ has a limited history, the residents are of highly educated, instead of concentrating on shopping complexes which will eventually create more traffic jams, the Council can turn PJ into a city of academics and culture integration.

We certainly hope that the Council can provide us with a proper, accountable, professional and accurate answer (even though written answers) towards all our queries here. We also certainly hope that this is not a one-off PR practice and more dialogues must be done continuously.

Friday, August 04, 2006

Not enough with Subang Jaya, Sepang Municipal Council is also involved in the same scandal. Same as what happened in Subang Jaya, owners of the commercial outlets under the jurisdiction of Sepang Municipal Council are all required to sign a contract with four designated companies to carry out pest-control exercises.

I have a copy of the leaflet with me and I had confirmed this with the council’s president office and the four designated companies. These companies are Salak Pest Control Sdn. Bhd., Wismanis Sdn. Bhd., Lembah Dahlia Sdn. Bhd. and Koswasta Asia Sdn. Bhd.

From our detailed scrutiny, we discover that:

1. The content of the two leaflets (MPSJ and MPSepang) are literally the same. The differences are only on the name of the councils and the name of the companies.2. The contract are also run based on consortium in which all the four companies are given the concessionaire to run pest-control exercise. While Koswasta Asia is also involved in the MPSJ’s concessionaire and is thus confirmed to be a pest-control company not recognized by the Pest Control Association of Malaysia, we are still in the midst of investigating the backgrounds of the other three companies.

In lieu of all these happenings, DAP Selangor would like MPSepang to come clear to all our questions here:1. What are the jurisdictions for MPSepang to require non-eatery commercial outlets to conduct pest-control exercise? It is of course reasonable for MPSepang to come out with the ruling to eateries and restaurants as well as food-processing factories but MPSepang is certainly lacking transparency in it’s policy making when requiring owners of non-eatery commercial outlets to do the same.2. Even though if pest control exercise is compulsory for all commercial outlets, why do MPSepang only designate one consortium to conduct the exercise for more than 10,000 commercial outlets under MPSepang’s jurisdiction? Is this consortium more experienced than other companies in the market, or it’s charges are more economical than the rest? Is the awarding of the concessionaire conducted based on open-tender system?3. One of the companies, Koswasta Asia is said not a member of the Pest Control Association of Malaysia (PCAM). If that’s the case, why MPSepang does not select a company registered, recognized and accredited by the association? Are the services provided by this consortium guaranteed and accredited by the association? Will it be held liable legally for any losses or accidents by its personnel when conducting pest-control exercises, especially when pest control personnel must be well-trained to handle insecticides and poisonous materials which could also be carcinogenic?

Besides, we are very much concerned of whether there could be some ‘big guys’ behind the scene trying to strike a deal with all 13 local councils in Selangor to monopolise pest-control business in Selangor. As for this stage, we hope that based on the principles of good-governance, transparency and accountability, the presidents of MPSepang and its councilors should be held liable and answerable to the taxpayers. We therefore urge the following:1. MPSepang to immediately suspend the implementation of this ruling until there is a clear and acceptable explanations from the council on this matter. The council should also explain when it enters into an agreement with a private consortium without consulting the taxpayers.2. MPSepang to immediately reveal the contents of the contracts in order to avoid MPSepang from entering any unjust contract with any private entity which will cause damage to the council and the taxpayers.3. MPSepang to immediately arrange for a three-party negotiation between the owners (the taxpayers), the consortium and the council to reach for a solution, so as to avoid innocent owners to sign any contract with the consortium without adequate consultations on what have happened behind.

Billboard scandal – who demolished the billboard we complained?

On Tuesday (1st August), I as my capacity as DAP PJ Action Team Chairman held a press conference in Jalan Universiti Petaling Jaya to highlight a huge billboard constructed by Spectrum Marketing Sdn. Bhd. nearby the junction of Jalan Universiti and Jalan 17/41 which is not only unsafe, but also not in accordance with the concept of a ‘safe city’ and ‘pedestrian first’ when the billboard was too close to the road and it occupied the pedestrian walkway.

To my surprise, I discovered yesterday evening that the bill board was taken down by somebody. Although this is a delighting news, but we do not know who are the authority who took down the billboard (Please refer to the two photographs that I took yesterday night).

It is believed that it was the work of the council, but I had lodged a police report at 7pm yesterday night to seek police’s investigation on the matter.

Actually, if the mayor can be transparent and accountable in his work, he can announce weekly on the numbers, sizes, identities of the owners and the locations of illegal billboard demolished.

This is indeed one of the three demands that I put forward to him. The other two demands are:1. To demand the Mayor to come out with an order to stop constructions of any new billboard in PJ until there is an accountable, satisfactory and acceptable official explanation given by the council in order to prevent irresponsible outdoor advertising companies from constructing billboards that endanger public safety.2. To demand the Mayor to draw up a policy for a dialogue must be conducted with the residents before any billboards are constructed in any area.

We do not need to beat around the bushes, if the Mayor can work transparently and accountably.